The NHLPA loves compliance buyouts. The player gets their full salary and gets to sign with another team.
The owners don't want compliance buyouts because they don't want to be spending money for players to not be on their team right now
You're probably confusing it with the lockout thing. The accelerated buyout, which guys like Gomez and Redden received, worked like that. They got their full salary for the lockout season and then after that the buyout kicked in normally without cap consequences (2/3 of the salary). It was done to avoid teams sitting out players so that they won't get injured, IIRC both the Rangers and Habs had already announced that their respective previously mentioned players wouldn't be playing.
It would be a nice carrot to the NHLPA (first year full salary, rest normal buyout), but the accelerated buyout happened out of circumstance, so why would the owners agree to it this time? If amnesty buyouts were to happen, it would be during the offseason and there wouldn't be the same sort of need for it like in 2013.
Why? It's the owners who don't like the compliance buyouts.
Amnesty buyouts mean that a handful of shit players take a 33% pay cut, and 100% of their cap space can be used to give money to other players. Those players who took the pay cut can also turnaround and sign a new contract with another team too and make up the losses.
Well those "handful of shit players" would lose millions upon millions of dollars, which they wouldn't lose under normal circumstances. So yeah, it is kind of a big deal for them and not all of them are in a position to make it back on new deals, especially in this current situation where every team is short on money to give out (yes, I understand this would create more space for teams, but lots of teams have already issues paying their young core players, so the money would be soon spent).
They might be millionaires already, but money is still money. I just don't see the incentive from the NHLPA's side to do this in the middle of a CBA.